Rhodah Kiilu & 106 others v Governor, Machakos County & 2 others [2018] KEELRC 1569 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that Machakos' Governor lacked power to suspend 437 county staff without written reasons; only the County Public Service Board can discipline county employees.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the compulsory sending of 437 finance staff on leave without letters of suspension or interdiction violated fair administrative action
Yes - the applicants were never served with suspension or interdiction letters nor informed of any offence, offending fair administrative action
The court found no individual letters were issued to the staff explaining they were on suspension except that salaries were withheld. Section 4(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act requires that administrative action be expeditious, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair, and that written reasons be given. The applicants were never informed of the offences facing them, so the process was procedurally unfair.
Whether the 1st Respondent (Governor) had jurisdiction to suspend county employees
No - disciplinary control over county public service employees lies with the County Public Service Board under Sections 58 and 59 of the County Governments Act
Section 58 of the County Governments Act establishes the County Public Service Board, and Section 59 confers on it the function of exercising disciplinary control over and removing persons holding offices in the county public service. The Governor's action of suspending the applicants usurped the Board's powers and cannot stand; the contemplated action is stayed for want of jurisdiction.
Whether the claim is fatally defective for want of authority of the deponent to act for the other claimants
The court found no indication the other applicants gave Rhodah Kiilu authority to institute the claim, rendering the application a non-starter, though it still made substantive orders
The court observed that although the applicants approached the court through Rhodah Kiilu, there was no evidence that the other applicants authorised her to institute the claim. It described the entire application as a non-starter for that omission, yet proceeded to stay the contemplated action against the applicants and to preserve the Board's right to institute due disciplinary process.
Legal principles established
#- An employee is entitled to written reasons for any administrative action taken against him under Section 4(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act
- The County Public Service Board has exclusive mandate to exercise disciplinary control over county public service employees; a Governor usurping that power acts without jurisdiction
Court orders
#- 1.The action contemplated against the Applicants is stayed for want of jurisdiction by the 1st Respondent
- 2.The 3rd Respondent is not estopped from instituting proper disciplinary processes against their staff following due process
- 3.Parties are free to try reconciliation processes to resolve the matter
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 41(1) and 41(2)(b) of the Constitution; Sections 3 and 2(1)(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rhodah Kiilu & 106 others v Governor, Machakos County & 2 others [2018] KEELRC 1569 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Employment and Labour Relations Cause No. 2164 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1569/eng@2018-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.